At the beginning of last century, vdBvE had discussion with
his colleagues about the impact of the Roman Stoic philosophy on earliest Christianity,
especially the parallels between Epictetus and some NT passages. Unlike his
opponent Kuiper, vdBvE does not assume that Epictetus was familiar with the NT.
In the course of the dispute, Kuiper got involved the letter of Clement.
Another incentive was a recent work from Voelter's on the same letter.

The authenticity question is ambiguous. The letter itself is
anonymous. Church history around 170 started to date the epistle in the times
of Domitian, but only a generation later it is rumorously assigned to Flavius
Clemens, the martyr bishop and third pope, also known as a relative of the
emperor, an assistant of Paul in Philippans, an evangelic messenger in the
shepherd of Hermas, and so on. So we must distinguish two levels of
authenticity.

An imagined scenario: Your Daily News publishes an anonymous
article. the readers ask about the author. Many suspect a certain person. Now someone
comes and doubts that general suspicion. Does he doubt the authenticity of the
article itself? Certainly that's not the same issue. We should rather speak
about trustworthiness of a tradition vs. the lack thereof. The letter pretends
to be from the church of Rome to its sister church in Corinth, written in a
certain situation, and we have to examine this claim independently from the
name of the author which is not part of the writing's claim.

According to Eusebian church history, Hegesip went to Rome
and stayed there from the episcopacy of Anictetus through that of Eleutherius, the
latter usually being dating as starting around 174. It's during Eleutherius'
rule that Hegesip wrote his Hypomnmemata, which mention the letter of Clement
to the church in Corinth. It may not be securely said that already hegesip
named the epistle after said Clement, for this may be Eusebius' comment. So we
have the first external witness for the epistle around 175. Eusebius identifies
furthermore the author of the epistle with the third bishop of Rome and Paul's
helper in Philippans 4:3. He praises the letter and sees it as a genuine
writing from the church of Rome to its sister community in Corinth during the rule
of Domitian. The letter is said to have been well-known throughout the
Christian churches until Eusebius' times.

Kuiper tries to construes from Eusebius' words that the
letter must be blatantly prior to 150. But that's an illicit conclusion, given
that there are still over 2 decades left from there until the episcopacy of Eleutherius.
Now it isn't even clear, whether Eusebius correctly mirrors Hegesip's words,
because he screwed it upo several times, leading to inconsistencies. In IV:23:9
of the Church History, E. talks about a letter of a certain Dionys of Corinth
to Soterius, the immediate precedessor of Eleutherius. Alas, the letter itself
refers to the death of Soterius, making Eusebius' words smell fishy. This gives
us appr. 174 as the earliest date for the letter of D.

Ireneus writes that there was a great sedition within the
Corinthian church during the episcopacy of Clement, urging Rome to intervene by
means of an epistle to the Corinthian brethren. Yet this does not say that
Clement is the author. Irenean's list of Roman bishops, where the comment is
found, can't predate the episcopacy of Soter. This shows that around 170 the
letter was seen as an epistle from the Roman church to the Corinthian fellows,
without specified author.

Church traditions of the above sort are not much above the
level of mere speculations. We see this from Dionys of Corinth who sees Rome and
Corinth linked by the 'fact' that both communities are joint foundations of the
martyr apostles Peter and Paul. Dionys refers to Clement's letter as well to
Paul's to the respective communities. Loman concluded from this that the
canonical epistles does not respond to a particular situation in Corinth, but
is a general teaching about community discipline and against heresy. This
readily would carry over to Clement's letter.

These and some other inconsistencies show that the external
arguments have no power for confirming the tradition of the letter being by Clement
of Rome in Domitian's time to the Corinthian church.

The epistle starts mentioning recent suddenly emerging
troubles for the church in Rome. Conservative exegets interprete these as proscriptions
by the current emperor. The earliest one recorded by the patrists were under
Nero, then Domitian, Traian, and Hadrian. Usually that under Domitian is
chosen, as it confirms most with the list of earliest popes. [P. Kirby once
listed arguments for dating it to Nero's time]

We have to study the historical reports about proscriptions
by Domitian, the main sources being Dio Cassius and Suetonius. Both know a
relative of Domitian named Flavius Clemens who found no mercy by his cousin and
was executed, while his wife Domitilla, also reported as a member of the
imperial bloodline, was exiled.

Kuiper does not identify Flavius Clemens with pope Clement
of Rome, but nonetheless holds that Flavius and his wife were Christian martyrs.
The sources don't mention Christians explicitly, so it is to be reasoned why
this should be implied.

Dio Cassius mentions 'atheotes' as the charge Domitian
brought against his relative. Another charge often used was 'asebeia'. Nerva
found no mercy for either of these. Suetonius says that Domitian's fatal verdict
against his relative, out of mere rumour, was for 'contemptissimae inertiae'.
We find, much later, Mark Aurel equating barbarian peoples with 'inertores'.
Jews seem to have been called the worst of all barbarians, an obstacle to
(Roman) civilisation and progress. This is especially seen from Tacitus who
blames Jews for godless, asocial behaviour. So it is reasonable to conclude
that Flavius Clemens was sentenced for being sympathetic with Jews and their
diet, Ioudaikos Bios. Making him and many others executed under Domitian into
christians is too much of a stretch, so already Dr. Hartman. Kuiper is sure
that Domitilla was a christian, and uses this in order to show that Flavius
Clemens also was one.

Alas, christian sources are silent about Domitilla as a wife
of Clement. We here about a holy virgin Domitilla who was a niece of Clement.
Eusebius calls Domitilla the daughter of Clement's sister. The style of
Eysebius' statement makes in unlikely that he used a pagan source for that
claim, plus there's none extant that could confirm his claim. That's too much
pseudo-incidence to consider e.g. the existence of two Domitillas, one the
niece of bishop Clemens, theo other the wife of Flavius Clemens. Evidently the
notes about the illoyal relatives of Domitian just served after several
generations as a backgroiund for christian 'martyristory' [term coined by discussion
group member Jay Raskin].

Hegesip is the first, before some Bruttius or Brettius who
gave an extensive list of christian martyrs under Domitian, to mention these proscriptions.
But we see the parallel to the mass infanticide by Herod, out of fear of
messianic oracles, which is such a haltless fiction that serious historical
critics can't consider it. It's safe to assume that Hegesip tried to givehistorical reports about Domitian's brute
policy a christian martyrist face. Hegesip already declared Judah the Galilean
as Jesus' brother, making him uncle of various seditioneers (Menahem, ben Yair)
against Roman occupation who still in Domitian's times may have caused trouble
to the emperor.

Hegesip, Tertullian, Melitos, and Eusebius all depend on a
tradition that declares Domitian as a bloody proscriber against christianity.
Hartman notes that Domitiuan has been made intentionally into the summit of all
perversions and evils, including proscription against christianity. Christian
tradition distinguihed two types of evil emperors: the insaner type of Nero,
and the coldblooded despotic type of Tiberius, and subsequently Domitian.
Hartman also recognises the proscription under Nero as a lie, and its Tacitan
witness as a mystification.

After mentioning all the stretches and speculations, vdBvE
turns to listening to what the text of the epistle properly has to say.

In the middle of 19th century, it was ok to doubt the
authenticity of patristic writings, or their dating, as done e.g. by the
Tuebingen school around Baur. But since late 19th century, this critical attitude
toward church tradition is outlawed. According to Harnack, one has to take all
of church history at face value as it doesn't violate common sense. This lead
to a major regress in the study of early christian history.

The writing claims to be a letter by the christian community
of Rome to that of Corinth, and dealing with critical events on the side of the
recipient. But looking closer, it's recognisable that the form of the letter is
deceptive, and actually we have a tractate on communal peace and unity.

This is the situation for the church in Corinth described by
the letter: the office of bishops or leading priests and diacons, which have
been brought into their office by the authority of the apostles and their
legitimate successors for the sake and on behalf of the whole community. is
questioned and endangered by rebelling community members. One may not conclude
that the apostles were known alive by the current community members, for 44:5-6
opposes the current times with the good old times of the apostles where there
was no twist in the community endangering its existence and questioning of the
men in office.

Church hierarchy is justified by apostolic authority and succession.
Former presbyters of the church did not have to experience the troubles
tormenting the current community. There has been partisanship already in
apostolic times, but it was not to an extent comparable to now. It is alluded
to 1Cor. The charism of Paul was enough to suffigate any serious schism. The
apostolic authority to select bishops for a community is seen as automatic,
like Moses who did not need the order of Aaron to found his hereditary levitic office.
The deeds of the apostles are seen as exemplary. The older partisanship in
Corinth is seen as just a choice between various apostles and apostolic
disciples. The seditioneers of the writer's days have no such legitimacy.
Unlike Hilgenfeld, who sees the danger of the situation as one of the image
that christianity enjoys in its pagan environment, vdbve sees it as a moral
perversion and decadence maiming the christian church from within.

About the rebels it is not said much more than that they
rebel against the apostolically legitimated priesthood. 1:2 - 2:8 describes the
idyllic situation of the old community, which is now in danger of being
corrupted. The members were obedient observants of the community rules and
submitting to the bishop's authority - a typical Roman Catholic community. The rebels
are deemed as louts and enemies of order, as modernists. They are exhibiting
various types of immoral behaviour. Also anarchist ascetism, a self-inflating
purity, is frowned upon in 38:2. In 40:4, the wise is characterised by good
works, in refutation of the adversary 'Gnostic' attitude. A domestified
in-church gnosis seems to be justifiable, 1:2. 51:1 emphasises the universal,
catholic character of the Roman church. Gnostic elitism is thus not tolerated.

God is begged to make the rebels devote and regretful. The
rebels are begged to tone down and submit to the legitimate bishops. Otherwise
they risk losing their salvation.

The impact of one or two nuts on the stable community is
described as desastrous, which is quite unrealistic.

We have no clear picture of what happened in Corinth. The
Roman church intervenes without explaining clearly why.The seduced masses are insulted. In a real
letter to a community in such a critical situation, the consequence would
bethat the majority of the community
becomes upset about the audacity of the Roman priests meddling with their
affairs in such a tone. There's no way that it would be helpful for the
legitimate priesthood the letter pretends to vindicate. And church history
tells us that the Roman plot was successful. Scholars are not in agreement
whether only some or all legitimate presbyters are assumed to be brought pout
of office. The text appears contradictory in this respect.

The bulk of the problems dissappear onces we don't assume
anymore that the "letter" was written to a particular community in a
concrete situation, but that we have to deal with a didactic tractate. The schism
in Corinth thus is not the concrete situation for the letter, but it belongs to
the imaginary framework. The "letter" teaches against arrogance, its
consequence being disobedience. The goal is unanimous submission to legitimate
authority. Legitimate priests do not need the justification by higher knowledge
and ascetism. While the latter two are tolerable in a domesticated framework,
they don't imply any special award.

Also the homiletic expression "let us gather ..."
in 34:7 makes only sense in a general tractate, for how would the Roman writers
and the Corinthian believers regularly come together. Reville already figured that
we have here typically Roman Catholic affirmation of communal eucharist, as
opposed to private eucharists in smaller circles. Also, the hasty
interpretation of the troubles recently and suddenly appearing for the Roman
church as proscription by the Emperor are out of warranty. First, knowing the
general Roman atmosphere, proscriptions did not rise suddenly and disappear
that fast again. Even more, many other cases of troubles are to be thought: Natural
death of important community members, diseases and famine ...,

After having already recognised the pseudoepistular
character of the writing, the Roman troubles also find smoothly a better explanation.
In order to be didactically efficient, the situation in Corinth must be
depicted as particularly progressed, which does not happen instantaneously. The
unspecified troubles serve as an excuse why the Romans did not intervene
earlier. Also Rome sees itself as being immune to schismatic events as assumed
in Corinth, even if, like anywhere in the christian world, schismatic
tendencies appear. This underlines the supremacy claim of Rome.

Already Loman noticed that a lot of stuff that bears no
evidently significant relation to the Corinthian schisms is subject of a larger
sermonal part of the text.

Thus it's Voelter who noticed that the epistle does not with
the Corinthian case in its particularity, but with general topoi of discord and
disobedience under religious aspects. Voelter sees in it an admonishing,
preventive character. Fo otherwise, the community is praised in the letter.

General sermons about piety, faith, humility, and so on sure
won't help in a particular situation of a progressed schism, nor do the generous
wishes of the writer.

The result of this chapter could be that the author tries to
give a constructive tractate on the necessity of unity of the community and faithful
obedience and submission to the legitimate bishops.

We've already wagered that the writer's perspective is that
of the Roman Catholic understanding of clerical hierarchy. Hilgenfeld noted the
sharp distinction between clergy and laymen [we know heresies that cast dice
for determining the bishop of the day!] The Roman clergy sees itself as
decreing humbly and generously the will og God, while the rebels follow their
own will. vdBvE extends Hilgenfeld's observation based on 39:1 that this draft
of thought is present and fundamental for the whole epistle.

40:5 distinguishes the rights and duties of clerics from
those of laymen. The clerical body derives its authority from the wise decision
of the apostles who brought the first clergimen into office. We can't use it as
a trustworthy historical statement concerning the apostolic days, nevertheless
about the times of the writer. The author obviously knows that the
authoritarian apiscopacy is not all that old, and sees urged into proving that
it is. 42:5 uses Isaiah 60:17 for this purpose. Apostolic succession is explained
and established: God empowered the Christ, the Christ empowered the apostles,
and those inturn the legitimate bishops, priests, and diacons. Chaper 43
employs Moses for the apostolic succession. Voelter sees 43 as secondary, but
it doesn't have to be so.

What the letter tries to witness is that the apostles did
not act out of audacity when establishing the first cleric body, but that the major
precedence is found in the Old Testament. Like Moses, in an episode involving
the sprouting staff of Aaron, the apostles foresaw wisely future twists about
the title of the clergy and made the correct choice of the first clerical body
and gave orders concerning their succession.

We find no exact mention of a monarchic episcopacy. This was
often taken as a sign of earliness, i.e. predating the times when an urbs had
no more than one legitimate bishop at a time. But the first monarchic
episcopacy even in Rome cannot be witnessed before mid second century, when
Anicetus came into office.

We also see the strong influence of military language. The
author obviously saw the discipline in the Roman army as an example for oder and
organisation of the church. Women and young men were excluded from having
anything to say, for they were most suspicious for heresy.

Schweegler [of the Tuebingen school] already noted that the
author was striongly influenced by the epistle to the Hebrews, the latter being
also assigned to Clemens Romanus by some of the church historists, and concluded
that the name Clement has become already early symbol for a theological
tendency. It's the Catholic trend to mediate between judeochristianity and
gentile christianity. Pauline topics are found hand in glove with judaising
work justice. Equally inconsistant is the explanation of the reconcilatory
death of Jesus. Voelter already declared Clementine theology as a restored
Judaism. Uhlhorn interprets the switches between ultrapauline and judaising
topics as the shift from apostolic doctrine to that of the Catholic Church,
where Paulinic thought is watered for the sake of the mediocre. Abraham is
justified by faith according to Paul, by works according to James, Clement combines
the two of them. The view of Rahab is similar.

Paul's epistle to the Roman is seen as common possession of
both communities. Assuming authenticity of the main letters, it's hardly
plausible how within one or two generations such a poor understanding and
watering may appear as is present in Clement's letter. If, following van Manen,
one postpones the epistles into early second century and thinks it a
pseudoepigraph [some of van Manen's works are online on
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhcread
especially the one dedicated to Romans], Clement's letter must be of course
later than Paul's, but the distance doesn't have to be all that large. Yet the
arguments of van Manen's have not been rebutted in their essential core [van
Manen died in 1905, and even until now there have been only corrections in
details, but no real arguments against the main cause The canonical Paul is
already toned down. This explains the sympathetic feelings of Clement for
Pauline stuff.

The Catholicism of the letter is typically Roman, as seen
from the self-representation of the Roman community as supremesupervisor over churches far away. The Roman
church remains in its original brillant state, while elsewherea community sinks
into decadence and corruption. The leading bishop of Rome is the supreme voice
of the apostolic tradition. The epistle is written on the church's behalf, but
this does not imply an early dating, as also an epistle of Soter is written on
behalf of the community, not of Soter.

Voelter noted that the old testament has outstanding
priority and authority. Christian stuff is just seen as the icing of the OT cake.
VdBvE rather says that christian piety is assimilated to the OT. On the one
hand, the OT serves as an authority to those who would not trust the authority
of the Roman clerics on their own. On the other hand, we see a tacit polemics
against the devaluation of the Ot in certain heretic circles. This has its
parallels in the writings of Irenaeus and Justin Martyr who equally emphasise
the necessity to see the church as legitimate guardian of the OT tradition. The
OT is an arsenal for dogmatic weapons of the church.

Voelter deemed the epistle of Clement as a Jewish writing,
reworked in christian sense. He uses the strangeness of the psalm quote in
22:1. But we see a parallel also in Justin Martyr's writings. This allegorical
usage of the OT was important in the conflict with Gnostic heresies beginning
with mid second century. Also the emphasis of creator and father of Jesus is ostentatively
emphasised, which alludes to knowledge and deprecation of the
Gnostic/Marcionite distinction thereof. Also Irenaeus' usage of the epistle in
Adv. Haer., appearing quite natural, alludes to this relation. The early dating
is thus just a church statement for underlining their claims of being legal
successors of the apostles, while indeed the letter was written in the course
of the conflict with the heretics.

Tertullian complains about the openness of the Marcionite
church, and that women and young men are not properly discriminated. Many other
topics of Marcionism as described by Tertullian are tacit subject of the
polemics in Clement's letter.

49:6 emphasises the sacrifice of Jesus in flesh and blood,
apparently against heresies who deny that. Conservative critics would have to hold
that Clement just babbled without cause.

Trinity is already alluded to.We also see traces of knowledge of patripassianism.

Volkmar praised the letter of Clement as an oasis in the
desert interval of anonymous and pseudonymous writings extending between Paul and
Justin Martyr.

Alas, we've seen that the identity of Clemet as the author
is only result of church tradition, whose first external witness is not before 173.
Dionys of Corinth knows that the letter is read publically in community, which
also hints at it not being known long before his times. The legend assigning it
to the time of Domitian's proscription also was the result of a longer
evolution. The traditional dating was promoted by the convenient habitude of
using it as witness of the priority and apostolic legitimation of the Roman
church tradition over those of heretics, as shown by the usage by Irenaeus.
Army-like discipline, submission to clerical authority, and the like are all Catholic
topics defended in struggle with diverging heresies.

Many deem the lack of an explicit naming of Gnostic heresies
as a sign for the old age of the letter. But we've seen that the emphasis of Roman
Catholic topics makes only sense as a refutation of known heresies that behave
differently. This shows the absurdity of the argumentation from silence.
Further topics of this sort are the strict discrimination of clerics andlaymen, as well as the denigration of
ascetism and gnostic-type revelation that are only tolerated in a strictly
domestified environment.

The author sees the apostolic time as something recent, but
it is so of course when compared to the times of Moses, who are invoked
prominently as the forerunners of apostolic times. Still Diognetus summarises
the time passed since beginning of Christianity as 'now', when compared to the old
history of Israel. We see a parallel between the mention of the Danaids and
Dirke, and that of Blandina in Irenaeus writings, as women who were proscribed
and tortured to death. We've seen that a proscription against Christians under
Domitian is not affirmable from the sources.

A connection between the address of the epistle and some
passages of the first epistle of Peter 2:11 has been assumed since many centuries.
It appears strange to find a term employed here in an address [Eysinga presents
details here involving certain koine terms -ks].

Chapter 47 gives a few more hints. For v2 there are
diverging variae lectio in manuscripts. Clement of Alexandria divided the
history of early christianity into two phases, the first being from Jesus to
the end of the lifetime of the apostles in Nero's reign, the second being the
struggle against heresies starting with Hadrian's reign. Assuming this usage of
language, the good old times when the gospel began to be preached thus refer to
the first period, opposing them to the current times means thus not before the
rule of Hadrian where heresies befell the churches. This also explains the
community of Corinth to be called ancient in the same chapter: It was before
the heresies appeared.

Voelter showed how Clement depends in many ways on Paulk's
letter to the Romans. Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippans, and Ephesians are
not reflected. The usage of Hebrews is evident. Voelter reverses the common
view that Clement depends on I Peter, with weak evidence, so vdBvE. I Peter
1:2ff vs. I Clem. 64 hint towards the classical assumption - Clement summarises
Peter.

James depends straignt on Clement, acc. to Voelter, best
evidenced by James 2:21-23 vs. I Clement 10:1-7.

After all, the difficult dating of the catholic letters and
Hebrews doesn't suggest a closer dtaing.

The synoptics are frequently quoted, and not quite in the
canonical form, but rather in a mixed manner. This is best explained by unintentional
mixing when quoting from the backhead. Tatian's gospel harmony, the
Diatesseron, exhibits a similar trend.